Sept 2018 proc. decision announcementStarting to enter service 2023"MIV program. Thales UK, as part of this consortium, is confident that this Battle Wining capability can be delivered to meet the MOD’s challenging timelines in order to achieve operational readiness of the first UK Strike Brigade by 2025"- so that has rolled by 2 yrs in time- how many of the 500 will have been delivered by 2025 is not so central, as it is widely believed that there will be further stages to the prgrm. Just how long does it take to fine tune the ORBAT? - Longer than the "MDP" under some new name. NAO opined that whatever will come out of it may not (be in time to) fully inform the next EP - or, look at the bright side, we will have plenty to discuss and speculate about

Lord Jim wrote:further information has appeared regarding the UK and the possible purchase of the Boxer to fulfil the MIV requirement. According to the Senior sales Director of Rheinmetall the UK is looking for an initial purchase for 500 vehicles in four variants, APC, Command, Ambulance and Repair,

Not sure if this is the latest, but a rough calculation of abt 60 MIVs (plus other vehicles on top) per such a bn would give 8; we have 32 inf. bns in total- so 24 are without armoured ambulances (not counting the ones now in service: very few converted Warriors, any Samaritans (?), and the rest from the ever-faithful 40-50 yr olds).- assume that tank rgmnts will be supported by their supporting AI bns- assume further that you will always have 6 ambulances, but this may be increased to 9- so, other than hi-roof MIVs (same as the command variant?) we would need 24 x 9 = 216, whereas not all bns will be deployed at the same time so let's calculate "the floor", too: 24 x 6 =144, shifting them around as needed

Whatever the quantity for Package 2 or B turns out to be (and the protected ambulance is not the only version within it), this is what was said in the Parliament April last year about the timing of the decision :"Package 2 will provide the Troop Carrying Vehicles and Future Protected Battlefield Ambulance, and is currently the subject of an ongoing competition, with a decision expected in early 2019."

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Whatever the quantity for Package 2 or B turns out to be (and the protected ambulance is not the only version within it), this is what was said in the Parliament April last year about the timing of the decision :"Package 2 will provide the Troop Carrying Vehicles and Future Protected Battlefield Ambulance, and is currently the subject of an ongoing competition, with a decision expected in early 2019."

I thought that was for the MRVP program, not MIV? Last rumour that I heard was that we were looking for 300 or so of the Phase B vehicles. I must say that the latest Bushmaster looks good for that

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. Winston Churchill

Caribbean wrote:thought that was for the MRVP program, not MIV? Last rumour that I heard was that we were looking for 300 or so

Well, the other half (of the 300, if accurate) would be troop transport (if Package 3 has not been baked into "B" , and if so, "3" would make for about 10% of the "B" total), and they would protected/ armoured, so to me that sounds like a wheeled APC- APC, as opposed to IFVs, is not supposed to be ploughing (far) into the direct fire zone when coming to meet it

Sure, the MIV has a protection level that can be improved, to turn it into an IFV, whereas whatever will be chosen as part of package B doesn't. A good candidate here, picked up from TD's thorough piece: https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpen ... le-MRV.jpg- though nothing wrong with the Bushmaster either (and would leave the recovery vehicle for 100% UK manufacture)

The real reason for choosing this thread was to make an argument in favour of two different (wheeled) protected ambulances, to make them fit with the fleets of their respective formations.

Information releases sort of blurs the line between MIV and MRV(P). If the high number of MIVs was purchased, the MRV(P) would be limited to the 4x4 variant, though there are more than enough variants of this vehicle to cover all the requirements of a Motorised Infantry Battalion. With luck the MIV or Boxer will also replace many of the FV430 variants in service meaning that the almost still borne BASV programme can be put to rest.

Of all the Army's programmes I strongly believe that the procurement of Boxer will have by far the biggest impact on the Army and should be its top priority. How the programme develops and is managed is crucial and I believe the purchase of sufficient vehicle to equip the first battalion should be accelerated so that it can be discovered what variants the Army actually needs. Those currently planned will form a solid core but I am pretty sure that the need to increase firepower will quickly be realised, looking at the lessons learned by the US Army's Stryker units. Other variants not currently mentioned such as a Mortar Carrier will surely appear fairly rapidly and will a recovery variant. With a Regiment fully equipped the further variants required will on the whole become fairly obvious.

Lord Jim wrote:With luck the MIV or Boxer will also replace many of the FV430 variants in service meaning that the almost still borne BASV programme can be put to rest.

Just a thought, since we now seem to have an embarrassment of Ajax's, with the planned changes to Armoured and Strike Brigades, surely we could switch and build more of the APC variant (Ares?), as the Army claims to have full control over which variants are built, and use those to replace the FV432's, keeping everything tracked. Maybe even release some turrets to use on MIV. Use MIV or MRVP variants in place of FV432 in the Strike/ Protected Mobility Brigades, keeping everything wheeled.

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. Winston Churchill

In my view there is no need to keep everything tracked. Modern 8x8 have very nearly equal cross country mobility that said vehicles have and are more resilient to mines etc as the can afford to lose multiple wheels and still move where as losing a track immobilises any such vehicle. Have wheeled vehicles in the AI Brigades causes no problems but add benefits, the same cannot be said for having tracked vehicles in mainly wheeled formations such as the "Strike" Brigades.

It will be far easier to create a mortar variant of the Boxer for use in both AI and Mech formations than try to create one from either the Warrior of Ajax chassis. Command variants will have more room if based on the Boxer and so on.

As for the surplus of Ajax, well to start I would move two of the Ajax Regiment to the two AI Brigades immediately and increase the number of Mech Infantry units in each "Strike" Brigade to three. Ideally I would remove all Ajax from these Brigades and use the turrets modified to carry two to four Javelin-ER ATGMs in addition to he CTA-40, to allow the creation of a fire support platoon in each Mech Infantry Battalion of eight vehicles. I would use the same turret to give each remaining Ajax Regiment a similar sub unit but obviously using the Ajax.

We are buying too many Ajax for our needs. I would put two Regiments worth into immediate storage whilst at the same time look to additional variants that maybe of use to the Army. To this end I would seriously look at the US Army's current medium armour programme where one of the submissions is based on the same chassis as the Ajax and the examine what variants are being proposed. One that springs to mind is the one fitted with the low recoil 120mm smoothbore gun. If funding were available at a future date it may be possible to create one or two medium Armour units that are all arms and ideal for rapid deployment to support either are light rapid reaction formations or even the "Strike" Brigades, providing an armoured punch to these units.

Lord Jim wrote: Ideally I would remove all Ajax from these Brigades and use the turrets modified to carry two to four Javelin-ER ATGMs in addition to he CTA-40, to allow the creation of a fire support platoon in each Mech Infantry Battalion of eight vehicles.

How does Javelin make for fire support? OK, can take out other hard targets, not just MBTs, but...

Looks like I have to go on preaching about 1 in 4 MIVs at the 'base level' being a fire support to the rest.If we want 24 dismounts out of 4 vehicles (of a platoon), we can exceed that:- 3 with 2 staying with the vehicle- the 4th 3 staying- 9, 24... 33. Still have a Javelin pair (as in operators) and a DMR covering them, jumping out of the back of the 4th one; that AFV loaded with loadsa rounds for the CTA (for on-going, err, persistent fire support)

Does make you think how things would have been if we had stuck with the programme. We would have had a very good platform for Iraq and Afghanistan, the FV430 series would have gone as would a number of CVR(T) variants, and we would now be looking at what other roles the platform could fill. The boys (and girls) who draw up the Army's requirements really need to get their act together, as do those who carry out the assessments. They may have turned a corner so to speak with the programmes that are on going but funding is still not truly locked in, and we need to be willing to look at these existing programmes and see if the numbers and variants planned actually meet the needs of the Army going forward. They should be doing this now so that when the 2020 SDSR comes around that have a cast iron case to put forward to secure the kit the Army needs.

Lord Jim wrote:Does make you think how things would have been if we had stuck with the programme. We would have had a very good platform for Iraq and Afghanistan

Had we stuck with the program, a huge amount of the Army's problems would have never even occurred.

It would have removed the need to spend so many billions upon billions on MRAPs like Mastiff, at least in the numbers they got them.

It would have helped counter the recruitment crisis. Poor equipment early on created a public sense of "Join the Army, get blown up in a jeep" that caused awful perception issues (as it rightfully should, the underequipping of the men on the ground was a crime that someone truly ought to be jailed for negligence over) and contributed to part of the lack of recruits.

Honestly the last AFV procurement error I can think of on such a scale was the insistence on Cruiser/Infantry, or the declining of the Experimental Mechanised Force.

Dropping from Boxer, and thus suffering immense casualties and spending billions on other vehicles, only to then come back and spend money again to get Boxer in the end after it became even less British in design honestly deserves to go down in history as a truly legendary blunder of procurement fantasy vs just taking the simple, obvious option.

If I am honest, I didn't think we would go with Boxer even though I was the best choice IMHO just because it was rejected under the FRES(UV) trials. Enough people must have moved on so that few were afraid of any embarrassment.

Are the Warrior current sights equal to those on the Challenger 2? Fitting a RWS to the Boxer would allow and IFV variant to still carry eight or more dismounts that was the reason for highlighting it. If anyone can find a RWS capable of mounting the CTS40 with modern sights and FCS equal to those fitted to the upgraded Warrior, Challenger2s and Ajax please let us all know.

The previous edition adorns thousands of Russian made tanks... Thank you Thales

Talking about Russia (would I ever ) they trialled Centauro not only with its gun, but also their std 125 mm and the new 140mm- a pity that the results were never published- and then they changed the focus from the South and the East to the West... and went back to "proper" tanks

BTW, my understanding of the emergence of XP is that it brought back (with more internal volume) the amphibiosity (@28 t) that had been lost due to up-armouring- now with the gun it weighs in @36 t